View Full Version : what's your empathy/systemizing quotient?
Dana Gold
03-12-04, 11:15 AM
You don't have to HURRY to take these two which assess empathy and systemizing ability quotients. No poll here; the results are FYI only.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/page/0,12983,937443,00.html
Hi Dana,
Thanks for posting the EQ Test link. I have always felt uncomfortable with IQ Tests. Many people think that IQ Tests measure some fixed underlying mental ability. However, the increase in general educational levels in the United States during the past century, raised absolute IQ results by about 20 points over the century. They just keep re-adjusting the scale to maintain an IQ of 100 as the norm. This in itself is a strong sign of cultural bias.
I took the EQ and SQ Tests that you referred to, and have a "balanced" brain with both high EQ and SQ. Being the type of person that I am, I am always looking for the underlying cultural bias in any test that I take. The SQ test was heavily biased towards techno-geeks. It takes a fascination with gadgets as a sign of maleness, without regard to income level and other factors.
Context is everything. In exploring so called intelligence, the context is usually biased towards activities typically associated with men. This is especially important in any consideration of the controversial area of "female" brain and "male" brain. The link to the Guardian site where the EQ test is located starts with the tease: "How Male Or Female Is Your Brain?". Most stuff in this area is hogwash. However, some work in the area is interesting. To add another book to my Intersex Book Club recommendations, I would like to mention Carol Gilligan's "In a Different Voice". She takes an in depth look at the cultural construction of "intelligence".
Cheers,
(intersexed brain) Peter
Dana Gold
03-12-04, 03:38 PM
Your remarks are interesting and note-worthy. Maleness and femaleness are in many respects social constructs, but , as you pointed out, some aspects may have merit, maleness and femaleness do have real distinctions; however, are they learned or innate?..or both?...separate or overlapping, or blended?....or completely separate? or maybe even somehow subliminally and/or socially "induced"?
My thought is that all these tests for intelligence, gender, brain sex etc are based upon society's prevailing notion of Normalcy. To extend that scenario: how may such tests affect a person's self-concept after taking it and "scoring" themselves or be "scored" and conclude "what and who" they are? A genotypic and phenotypic heterosexual male may score high on femaleness (empathy).....does this mean they are gay or trsnsgendered? Or conversely a female scores high on systemizing...let me tell you right now that I personally know of a few female professors here on the Univ. campus who are quite "structured" within the "male range", but women in their own minds, neither gay or transgendered. My whole point is once again, that we are virtually bombarded and affected (especially with mass media...think about it...TV commercials) by concepts of Normalcy..of a Man, or Woman, of what is "natural" and what is "made up", what is inherent and what is a choice!! AND how many are swayed/ convinced / and try to "obey" these entities that are supposedly the "authority" of what kind of human being they are. Independant Robots in the Modern World?
Just as a person's gender is not determined by what's between one's legs, a person's soul is not determined by what's between their ears. That intangible self lies deep within each person's life energy and aura, it, as well as "what's between the ears (mind)" should not be dictated to and molded by "outer" standards and classifications by elusive and exclusionary principles of socially constructed Norms....i.e : what is average, low, or high upon the "scale". The inner self should be raised and nurtured in a much different way, ( especially children) rather than how it is and has been in the world, this planet. It should not be done like "raising cattle" in the field, and only the best "make it to market". The proof of such formative machinations lie in the reality of today's world: technically advanced, and steeped in a "caste" society, with the top "bulls" fighting for dominancy and "herding" and "protecting" the lesser cows, who get the "leftovers" and are submissive to the "power and authority" of the "better bunch".
I have been s/w esoteric, but my rant is and always will be the same: To actually LIVE and not just SURVIVE in humankinds' self-made "Jungle" one must rely upon one's self for self-affirmation, utilizing a philosophy that recognizes the dignity of each human life and does not rely upon paganistic concepts of what is normal and not normal, and who is righteous and who is not, who is crazy and who is sane. Especially in areas of anatomic sex and psychological gender and sexual orientation. Animals in the wild do not reject, persecute and "normalize" these " differences" amongst themselves....humans do...why??
Quick poser: The human fetus: consider carefully the pre-formative sex organs, brain and body....we all know the fetus is not yet male (awaiting SRY gene) and think not yet female (default into female)....soooo: what sex is the fetus?...should we start a poll on this one....what would be the choices?
:D
I just got 28 on the EQ test and 45 on the SQ one.
Well, I've never claimed to be a People Person.
Andi
For this one I'll need to respond to each pargraph individually.
Andi
Originally posted by ptrinkl108
Hi Dana,
"Thanks for posting the EQ Test link. I have always felt uncomfortable with IQ Tests. Many people think that IQ Tests measure some fixed underlying mental ability. However, the increase in general educational levels in the United States during the past century, raised absolute IQ results by about 20 points over the century. They just keep re-adjusting the scale to maintain an IQ of 100 as the norm. This in itself is a strong sign of cultural bias."
OK, I have two things to question about the paragraph above.
First, what is this "increase of general educational levels" you talk about? I can't speak about the whole past century, but I have observed over the past 25 or so years, a LOWERING of standards. Sure, there is more information to teach, but they seem to teach so much less now than they used to.
Second, how is adjusting the scale to keep 100 as the average score "cultural bias"? I see nothing cultural about it.
"I took the EQ and SQ Tests that you referred to, and have a "balanced" brain with both high EQ and SQ. Being the type of person that I am, I am always looking for the underlying cultural bias in any test that I take. The SQ test was heavily biased towards techno-geeks. It takes a fascination with gadgets as a sign of maleness, without regard to income level and other factors."
Well, that answers the question I asked above. By your own admission, you seek out this cultural bias at all times. Sometimes, when a person is too intent on finding something, it will be found whether it is there or not.
"Context is everything. In exploring so called intelligence, the context is usually biased towards activities typically associated with men. This is especially important in any consideration of the controversial area of "female" brain and "male" brain. The link to the Guardian site where the EQ test is located starts with the tease: "How Male Or Female Is Your Brain?". Most stuff in this area is hogwash. However, some work in the area is interesting. To add another book to my Intersex Book Club recommendations, I would like to mention Carol Gilligan's "In a Different Voice". She takes an in depth look at the cultural construction of "intelligence". "
Well, here is a paragrph I can't argue with. Many of these tests are too shallow to provide a true picture, and somewhat arbitrary.
Cheers,
(intersexed brain) Peter
Hi Andi,
I see that you have posted a paragraph by paragraph response to my recent post. I am getting somewhat paranoid about paragraph by paragraph responses to my posts, as this is the second time this has happened to me recently. It is especially disconcerting to get detailed responses to my posts when I do not believe that responders have understood my basic argument correctly. I got a paragraph by paragraph response to my favorable comments on gay marriage from another member. What was that about?
First, when I wrote about the general rise in educational level, I clearly said that the period under consideration was the hundred year period of the twentieth century. To substitute a different time frame of the last twenty five years is irrelavent to my argument. You are making a basic logical mistake.
If an IQ test was culturally neutral, then it would measure basic intelligence across different times and different cultures with neutral results. That measured IQ rose by about 20 points from when mass IQ testing started in the United States with the Army in World War I is a cause for great academic interest. You accuse me of wearing the glasses of cultural bias, but this rise of about 20 points over the last century is seen by many researchers and scholars who study the question of IQ testing for a living, as a great academic problem with IQ tests. You can view this debate on IQ testing by using your internet browser. A personal attack on me does not carry any weight.
I am glad that you have an IQ of 155 as you reported elsewhere. I believe that you are a bright person, and the fact that you agree with my last paragraph shows that you are not insensitive to all the issues that I raised in my post. As Dana said better than me, tests are often used to fold, spindle, and mutilate people. As intersex people have been mutilated enough, I believe that it is natural for us to question testing as one of the cornerstones of what Dana calls our "caste" society.
Well Andi, I see that you are a senior member of this forum. To paraphrase the cheeky words of Walter Benjamin, if you do not like the books you read, write your own. It's a big world. There is room for many intersex voices, coming from many different backgrounds.
Cheers,
Peter
I was a former member of Mensa. Can you believe it? I couldn't. I submitted the results of an Army GT test and they took me in. Um, Okay.....
There were various IQ tests at the time and you could have higher or lower scores depending on what test you took. As a matter of fact they had higher and lower ranges in the tests. The scores really meant nothing without also revealing what test you took. Nothing less than 130 on one test might qualify, whereas nothing less than 155 might qualify.
Obviously literacy and aptitudes and previous practice make a big difference. If you don't understand the words, you suffer a tremendous liability. And even if you do, there is also a liability if you are not in the "in" group. The words have to be understood in the "in" way. Now the kids are studying to take the intelligence tests. Besides that, having previously taken such things is a tremendous advantage in itself.
Mensa line: What do IQ tests measure? Your ability to take IQ tests.
You shouldn't take this tests as more than they are: a nice toy. Even the tests used by psychiatrists are flawed. Just take a question like *Do you have problems with drugs and alcohol?* If you answer *no* this could mean, you don't drink alcoholic beverages, but it could also mean you drink bottle a day and just don't see a problem in doing so. And you don't have to study math to find more than one solution to many of the mensa math-tests. These tests probably tell more about the people who insist you should take them.
Sof i e
Well, although I don't understand why you are, as you say, paranoid about paragrah by paragraph replies to your posts, I'll try to refrain from it whenever feasible.
My responces are based on my understanding of the original post, regardless of who the originating poster is. I won't waste time trying to assign blame since it can vary with each post. Sometimes the writer may not have articulated the thoughts well enough (I'm sure I've done this myself, not only in web postings, but in other forms of communication) and other times it may be due to a lack of understanding on my part.
As to the part where you mention the general rise in educational levels in the past century, I do believe there was something lost in the translation, so to speak. Yes, there is more knowledge now than there was 100 years ago, but my point is that in recent years the educational system has gone downhill drastically, which means individual students are learning less. Before a big debate on this issue is launched, let me state that I speak only from my own observations.
I'm not sure it was a logical mistake, as you said, but rather a different sort of misinterpretation. I made the error of substituting standards for level. So, I can agree with you on eductional level, not only over the past 100 years as you put it, but likely over the past 25 as I did. I do not have the data on this, but I am sure there is a higher percentage of the population continuing their educatuons after high school now than there were 100, or even 25, years ago.
But even with more people going on to higher education, that does not mean people are any smarter. A dimwit with a degree is still a dimwit. And conversely, a genius dropout is still a genius. Although most of society sees it another way. (OK, do you think I'm contradicting you now, or agreeing?)
I wince at terms like "cultural bias" because they are all too often overused (I am not accusing you of that, but it does put me on guard). I just don't see how whether or not someone can figure out the square root of 169 can be seen as culturally biased. (By the way, it's 13) I acknowledge that I am focusing on mathematics here, and my point with this is that mathematical laws are constant throughout the universe, regardless of cultures (though I could argue against the mathematical Order Of Operations, but that's a diffierent issue).
Now I can't deny that tests can be used to shove people into categories. I've been subjected to that myself, as I think most of us have. I know I could think up a test nobody else could pass. I'm sure you could do that too. So I don't take that score too seriously. I could take that exact same test in a month and most likely get a different score, whether higher or lower I can't say.
Well, I hope this made sense to you all.
Andi
Hi Andi,
The idea that mathematical ideas are constant throughout the universe, and that mathematical problem solving is the best measure of "intelligence" is a wide-spread idea. However, there is a small but growing movement of mathematicians who reject this idea, and see mathematics as socially constructed. I have had informal discussions with people holding these new beliefs.
Let's take your example of the square root of 169 as 13. You did not just figure that out on the fly while taking an IQ test. You have that stored away in your memory from past learning. So, if an IQ test involved knowing the square root of 169, then you would have the advantage of not having to figure it out, but could call it up from memory. This is somewhat in line with Wittgenstein's example of "Show me a blue patch?", where one could either point out a blue patch by consulting a color chart, or just pointing to it. (The blue patch problem is more interesting than this, but I will not explore all of its aspects in relation to the question of "mind" here.) In short, answering the most basic of questions is a social practice.
You wrote: "A dimwit with a degree is still a dimwit. And conversely, a genius dropout is still a genius". I could write a whole essay on that sentence alone.
Years ago, when I first saw an oscilloscope, the guidance counselor said don't worry, it looks complex, but we can teach you all that you need to know about it. I am sure that there are many who have been shown a sewing machine, and told, don't worry, it looks complex, but we can teach you all that you need to know about it. That is now "normal" science operates, and most "normal" science has little to do with "intelligence".
p.s. Uriela and Sofie, I found your posts really interesting.
Cheers,
Peter
Dana Gold
03-30-04, 08:20 PM
I was "cruising" through some old posts and found out that this empathy/systemizing test had already been presented to the group:
http://www.bodieslikeours.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=424&perpage=9&pagenumber=1
Very interesting....well after my rant about psychological/IQ etc tests being "standardized", I never did tell anyone my result: I'm an extreme E type E = 63; S = 4......which after my last little "snit" is probably quite obvious to some.....yes, I cry at emotional movies, am terrible at math, do-it-yourself stuff etc.....I synthesize/conceptualize rather than analyze; I focus on my feelings more than my "wits"...rather enigmatic for a science nerd:rolleyes:, wouldn't you say?..well, a very "sensitive" one, then.:p
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.